cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/15032962

Alt text: a screenshot of a microblog post with the text “you walking down an alleyway with a gram of weed in your pocket, who would you rather catch you?” Below are two pictures side by side. One of Kamala Harris and the other of Batman.

  • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    1·
    3 months ago

    The links I have cited have addressed the rest of your response in sufficient depth IMO. What I really find irritating is this suggestion:

    The only reason you wouldn’t want marginally better is if you’re hoping for things to get worse, like an accelerationist.

    I fractally reject this statement:

    • I absolutely do hope for things to get marginally better (as a weak case of “much better”). I am not in the business of causing chaos for its own sake (“Anarchy is order”).
    • I am not an accelerationist, and neither are any anarchists worth their salt. I reject that epithet, and the suggestion that I want things to get worse.
    • I reject the notion that voting is a “lever of praxis” at all, except in rare cases of local elections (but even then, the person I vote for is more likely to be “made useful” to the State than to radically stand for their voters).
    • I reject the notion that voting for the “least worst” figurehead has any impact on the decisions already made by those in power.
    • I reject the idea that one can only hope for things to monotonically get better or worse. Usually, decisions have tradeoffs. IMO, the “marginal benefit” of voting against an autocrat (1) does not actually exist and (2) debating its existence clogs up radical spaces and time (like I am doing right now! but my time isn’t very valuable to me lol) to debunk, taking this time and space from doing actually important stuff.
    • agamemnonymousEnglish
      1·
      3 months ago

      I reject the notion that voting for the “least worst” figurehead has any impact on the decisions already made by those in power.

      This is abject paranoia, and observably false. Yes of course a lot of policy is captured by capital, but not all. There is a wide range of actual variance between candidates. If there wasn’t any difference and they were all on the same team, they wouldn’t spend so much money trying to get you to pick them.

      IMO, the “marginal benefit” of voting against an autocrat (1) does not actually exist and (2) debating its existence clogs up radical spaces and time

      I reject this opinion on both counts. It’s an extremely privileged worldview.

      taking this time and space from doing actually important stuff.

      Like what, exactly?